Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Complainant awarded €5,000 for complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008127
The Complainant has a dispute with the Respondent over health and safety issues and lost earnings due to absence on sick leave due to alleged work-related stress.
The Complainant was employed from 16th April 2005. In October 2014 she raised a number of issues with her Line Manager. She had a number of concerns regarding three clients, involving care in one case, difficult handling in another and health concerns in the third case. She contends that her concerns were not dealt with properly. She was informed in case one that she was being taken off the case, and in case two that there would be no extra help managing a difficult client.
The Complainant was very unhappy with the way her grievances were handled and went on certified sick leave in June 2015. On 21st March 2016 the Complainant wrote to her Manager requesting that she be referred to the relevant section for consideration for early retirement on the grounds of ill-health. She invoked the formal grievance procedure in May 2016 but her grievances were not upheld. It is submitted that the respondent failed to adequately consider the complainant’s concerns and that as she has been on sick leave from June 2015, she has been at a loss of earnings through no fault of her own.
In April 2017, some seven months after the Stage 3 Grievance hearing, the complainant referred her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. It should be noted that in December 2015, at a meeting between the complainant and her Line Manager, the Manager undertook to put supports in place to help resolve the issues causing the complainant’s stress. However, the complainant verbalised to her Manager that the meeting had come too late and at that time the complainant had decided that she was not coming back to work.
There were a number of sensitive issues in relation to dealing with clients in this case and the Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent was correct in following all procedures which they are obliged to do in the whole issue of care in the community. However, the complainant had strong views on how matters should have been handled. The Adjudication Officer noted the refusal of retirement on the grounds of ill health was made without Occupational Health actually seeing the complainant. This is regrettable and led to dissatisfaction on the part of the complainant. In all the circumstances, the Adjudication Officer does not recommend the overturning of the grievance findings. However, to bring this long running dispute to a close, and in recognition for the failing to consult face to face with the complainant on her application for ill health retirement, the Adjudication Officer recommended that the respondent offer to the complainant and that she accepts a payment of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the dispute.
Complainant awarded €2,275.12 for non-payment of Commission and No Contract of Employment provided
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013184
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 17th February 2014 and left on 22nd September 2017. At the time of her leaving employment the Complainant alleges she was owed a commission payment for the months of August 2017 and September 2017, has outstanding holiday entitlement from 2015 for which she was not paid and finally a third complaint that she had never been issued with a contract by her Employer, the Respondent.
The Complainant lodged three complaints with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 1st February 2018, these complaints are as follows:
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 –002 = Outstanding commission payment for two months, August and September 2017. Amount of commission not paid is €2,056.20 for August and €1,517.06 for September. The Respondent stated that all commission due was paid to the Complainant.
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 – 003 = The Complainant was entitled for 16.6 days’ annual leave in 2014, the Complainant took 6 days. The Complainant thought the remaining 10 days would carry to 2015. In 2015 the Complainant took 10+20 days’ annual leave, but at the end of 2015 my Employer didn’t pay for those 10 days. The Complainant never received a written Contract or Terms of Employment stating the annual leave terms. The Respondent stated the Complainant received her holiday entitlement and it is company policy not to permit a carryover from one year to the next
Specific Complaint – CA- 00017223- 004 = The Complainant never received a Contract of Employment or T&C’s of employment. The Respondent stated that the full details of the Terms and Conditions were explained to the Complainant.
The Adjudication Officer states that legislation dictates what any Employee is entitled to:
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 –002 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991 = During the hearing it was stated by the Complainant that an amount of €3,573.26 was due to her for commission for the months of August and September 2017. When checking this out at the hearing it was discovered that the outstanding amounts were due from June and July 2017, the figures provided by the Respondent’s Accountant were €634.40 for June and €582.73 for July, a total of €1,217.13.
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 – 003 - Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 = This complaint relates to holiday entitlement accrued during 2014 and the outstanding balance of which was taken in 2015. The Complainant alleges that she did not receive payment for 10 days that she carried over from 2014 and took the days in 2015.
Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 addresses the subject of presenting a case to a Rights Commissioner. The Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that since the 01/10/2015 complaints are presented to an Adjudication Officer of the WRC.
Section 27 (4) clearly states:
‘A rights Commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section if it is presented to the commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates’.
In this instant case the contravention took place in 2014/2015 and is therefore out of time. For this reason, the Adjudication Officer had no alternative but to find that this part of the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.
Specific Complaint – CA- 00017223- 004 - Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 =
Section 3 of this Act reads as follows:
3. (1) An Employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an Employee’s employment with the Employer, give or cause to be given to the Employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the Employee’s employment, that is to say:
a) the full names of the Employer and Employee,
b) the address of the Employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principle place of the relevant business of the Employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),
c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the Employee is required or permitted to work at various places,
d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the Employee is employed,
e) the date of commencement of the Employee’s contract of employment,
f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,
g) the rate or method of calculation of the Employee’s remuneration,
h) the lengths of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,
i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),
j) any terms and conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),
k) any terms and conditions relating to –
I. incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and
II. pensions and pension schemes
l) the period of notice which the Employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the Employee’s contract of employment) to determine the Employee’s contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method of determining such periods of notice,
m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the Employee’s employment including, where the Employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made.
Section 3 (4) states: ‘A statement furnished by an Employer under subsection (1) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the Employer’.
Section 7 (2) states: ‘A recommendation of a rights commissioner under subsection (1) shall do one or more of the following:
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(d) order the Employer to pay to the Employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the Employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.
For the breach of this legislation the Adjudication Officer ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant an amount equal to two weeks’ pay i.e. €1,057.99.
The total amount due to the Complainant is €2,275.12 and this amount should be paid to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this Decision.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008127
The Complainant has a dispute with the Respondent over health and safety issues and lost earnings due to absence on sick leave due to alleged work-related stress.
The Complainant was employed from 16th April 2005. In October 2014 she raised a number of issues with her Line Manager. She had a number of concerns regarding three clients, involving care in one case, difficult handling in another and health concerns in the third case. She contends that her concerns were not dealt with properly. She was informed in case one that she was being taken off the case, and in case two that there would be no extra help managing a difficult client.
The Complainant was very unhappy with the way her grievances were handled and went on certified sick leave in June 2015. On 21st March 2016 the Complainant wrote to her Manager requesting that she be referred to the relevant section for consideration for early retirement on the grounds of ill-health. She invoked the formal grievance procedure in May 2016 but her grievances were not upheld. It is submitted that the respondent failed to adequately consider the complainant’s concerns and that as she has been on sick leave from June 2015, she has been at a loss of earnings through no fault of her own.
In April 2017, some seven months after the Stage 3 Grievance hearing, the complainant referred her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. It should be noted that in December 2015, at a meeting between the complainant and her Line Manager, the Manager undertook to put supports in place to help resolve the issues causing the complainant’s stress. However, the complainant verbalised to her Manager that the meeting had come too late and at that time the complainant had decided that she was not coming back to work.
There were a number of sensitive issues in relation to dealing with clients in this case and the Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent was correct in following all procedures which they are obliged to do in the whole issue of care in the community. However, the complainant had strong views on how matters should have been handled. The Adjudication Officer noted the refusal of retirement on the grounds of ill health was made without Occupational Health actually seeing the complainant. This is regrettable and led to dissatisfaction on the part of the complainant. In all the circumstances, the Adjudication Officer does not recommend the overturning of the grievance findings. However, to bring this long running dispute to a close, and in recognition for the failing to consult face to face with the complainant on her application for ill health retirement, the Adjudication Officer recommended that the respondent offer to the complainant and that she accepts a payment of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the dispute.
Complainant awarded €2,275.12 for non-payment of Commission and No Contract of Employment provided
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013184
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 17th February 2014 and left on 22nd September 2017. At the time of her leaving employment the Complainant alleges she was owed a commission payment for the months of August 2017 and September 2017, has outstanding holiday entitlement from 2015 for which she was not paid and finally a third complaint that she had never been issued with a contract by her Employer, the Respondent.
The Complainant lodged three complaints with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 1st February 2018, these complaints are as follows:
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 –002 = Outstanding commission payment for two months, August and September 2017. Amount of commission not paid is €2,056.20 for August and €1,517.06 for September. The Respondent stated that all commission due was paid to the Complainant.
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 – 003 = The Complainant was entitled for 16.6 days’ annual leave in 2014, the Complainant took 6 days. The Complainant thought the remaining 10 days would carry to 2015. In 2015 the Complainant took 10+20 days’ annual leave, but at the end of 2015 my Employer didn’t pay for those 10 days. The Complainant never received a written Contract or Terms of Employment stating the annual leave terms. The Respondent stated the Complainant received her holiday entitlement and it is company policy not to permit a carryover from one year to the next
Specific Complaint – CA- 00017223- 004 = The Complainant never received a Contract of Employment or T&C’s of employment. The Respondent stated that the full details of the Terms and Conditions were explained to the Complainant.
The Adjudication Officer states that legislation dictates what any Employee is entitled to:
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 –002 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991 = During the hearing it was stated by the Complainant that an amount of €3,573.26 was due to her for commission for the months of August and September 2017. When checking this out at the hearing it was discovered that the outstanding amounts were due from June and July 2017, the figures provided by the Respondent’s Accountant were €634.40 for June and €582.73 for July, a total of €1,217.13.
Specific Complaint – CA-00017223 – 003 - Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 = This complaint relates to holiday entitlement accrued during 2014 and the outstanding balance of which was taken in 2015. The Complainant alleges that she did not receive payment for 10 days that she carried over from 2014 and took the days in 2015.
Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 addresses the subject of presenting a case to a Rights Commissioner. The Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that since the 01/10/2015 complaints are presented to an Adjudication Officer of the WRC.
Section 27 (4) clearly states:
‘A rights Commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section if it is presented to the commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates’.
In this instant case the contravention took place in 2014/2015 and is therefore out of time. For this reason, the Adjudication Officer had no alternative but to find that this part of the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.
Specific Complaint – CA- 00017223- 004 - Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 =
Section 3 of this Act reads as follows:
3. (1) An Employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an Employee’s employment with the Employer, give or cause to be given to the Employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the Employee’s employment, that is to say:
a) the full names of the Employer and Employee,
b) the address of the Employer in the State or, where appropriate, the address of the principle place of the relevant business of the Employer in the State or the registered office (within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1963),
c) the place of work or, where there is no fixed or main place of work, a statement specifying that the Employee is required or permitted to work at various places,
d) the title of the job or nature of the work for which the Employee is employed,
e) the date of commencement of the Employee’s contract of employment,
f) in the case of a temporary contract of employment, the expected duration thereof or, if the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the date on which the contract expires,
g) the rate or method of calculation of the Employee’s remuneration,
h) the lengths of the intervals between the times at which remuneration is paid, whether a week, a month or any other interval,
i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime),
j) any terms and conditions relating to paid leave (other than paid sick leave),
k) any terms and conditions relating to –
I. incapacity for work due to sickness or injury and paid sick leave, and
II. pensions and pension schemes
l) the period of notice which the Employee is required to give and entitled to receive (whether by or under statute or under the terms of the Employee’s contract of employment) to determine the Employee’s contract of employment or, where this cannot be indicated when the information is given, the method of determining such periods of notice,
m) a reference to any collective agreements which directly affect the terms and conditions of the Employee’s employment including, where the Employer is not a party to such agreements, particulars of the bodies or institutions by whom they were made.
Section 3 (4) states: ‘A statement furnished by an Employer under subsection (1) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the Employer’.
Section 7 (2) states: ‘A recommendation of a rights commissioner under subsection (1) shall do one or more of the following:
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(d) order the Employer to pay to the Employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the Employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.
For the breach of this legislation the Adjudication Officer ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant an amount equal to two weeks’ pay i.e. €1,057.99.
The total amount due to the Complainant is €2,275.12 and this amount should be paid to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this Decision.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
